Interesting article about ID

[jmercer]

These people are filth. They lie, they whine, and they gibber, and I could put up with the gibbering if it wasn;'t for the whining, and I could put up with the whining if it wasn't for the lying. I'm sorry to spout, but I came across a piece of these people's propaganda yesterday so evil and twisted and full of lies that I'm still angry. And this trash isn't making me any happier. Of all the filth that creeps the Earth these people have the least intellectual integrity. They are culpably ignorant. And Newsweek should not be describing science as a "slur" which Americans are fighting, because to do so is yet more culpably ignorant, because they are paid to report the truth, and instead they are letting themselves be duped by lying scum.

You really have to stop holding back, amigo. Tell us how you really feel...

The article was either poorly written - or more likely - poorly edited. I've worked for newspaper and magazine publishers over the years, and have actually witnessed writers cry, scream and quit their jobs over some of the things editors have done to their articles just to make them fit on the page.

 

[fishbob]

Originally posted by new drkitten:

Really? When was this? As I recall, in 1899, the "ultraviolet catastrophe" was the equivalent of headline news in physics, and the precession of Mercury was hotly discussed in the journals because it simply could not be fit to the accepted Newtonian equations of motion.

You are a lot older than I thought.

From the article:

A 2002 resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science called I.D. "an interesting philosophical or theological concept," but not one that should be taught in science classes.

Looks like AAAS is a bunch of weenies. What ID really is is a bunch of deliberate dishonesty wrapped up in sciency sounding phrases.

 

[varwoche]

In this instance, the organization spewing the ID nonsense is The Discovery Institute. They are based in Seattle. They have a "subsidiary" called Cascadia that is involved with local transportation issues. Cascadia got major funding from Bill and Melissa Gates. Odd.

 

[Hawk one]

As was any controversy in 1899, when science had also unlocked all the secrets of a hard science, physics?

HAHAHAHA! Look, hammegk, just because one patent commisionar once resigned because apparently there was nothing left to invent, doesn't mean that the scientific community were in agreement of this. One person does not equal the entire population, you know,

Oh, and here is another interesting fact: The famous quote you're embelleshing out of proportion is actually an urban legend. There is no evidence of anyone resigning from a patent office because there's nothing left to invent.

So, would you provide me with a proper reference that the scientific community in 1899 was all happy about things? Or is it perhaps time you should try to understand how science actually works?

 

[hammegk]

... is it perhaps time you should try to understand how science actually works?

Just curious; do you have some specific thought on the 'workings of science' you have concluded I don't understand?

I suspect you are wrong.

 

[Hawk one]

Just curious; do you have some specific thought on the 'workings of science' you have concluded I don't understand?

I suspect you are wrong.

So, are you going to show me some actual evidence that the scientific community at large thought they'd solved everything, then (1899) or now (2005), then? You give me that, and I'll answer what I think you don't understand. Avoid giving it to me, and you pretty much answer it yourself.

So, going to put up?

 

[hammegk]

1. Do you know what hyperbole is?

2. Can you type & chew gum simultaneously without hurting yourself?

Finally, buzz off, or add something.

 

[Hawk one]

1. Do you know what hyperbole is?

2. Can you type & chew gum simultaneously without hurting yourself?

Finally, buzz off, or add something.

HAHAHA! I guess you are not willing to give me the evidence I asked for... But let me try again:

Show me evidence that the scientific community at large in 1899 thought that everything that was to discover, was discovered. Don't put up silly strawman questions, show me the evidence.

Once you do that, I will be happy to point out what I think your beliefs about how science in general works.
Irrelevant questions won't help your case.

Of course, I am also feeling generous today:
1: No, I don't know. Simple as that. I've never thought to read up about it, but I may start doing so in the future. Why would this be relevant to the evidence you have yet to show me?

2: Not only that, but I can also watch television while typing (and chewing gum) and end up with less than 5% errors that needs to be corrected. Can you do this while also riding a bicycle?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Do you know what hyperbole is?

A form of illegitimate rhetoric (eristic) intended to convince by misinforming: specifically, an exaggeration so wild as to constitute a lie.

 

[thaiboxerken]

C'mon, you should know by now that Hammy's posts are just background noise.

 

[hammegk]

Let's look at a usual fallacy: “The existence of the universe is given.”

"Is given " is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.

That's ID.

 

[Hawk one]

C'mon, you should know by now that Hammy's posts are just background noise.

I'm aware of this, Ken. I just felt like I should give you guys a break by covering his noise for you guys while you deal with other stuff. Because I had nothing much to do this weekend anyway.

And thanks for the info on hyperboles, Dr. Adequate. Clearly we see hammegk following up your explanation with an example of this, just so that I can truly understand what a hyperbole is. And who says he's never providing anything for us?

 

[hammegk]

:yawn

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy is master of hyperbole and strawman tactics. It's because he really has no substantial arguments.

 

[Hawk one]

Indeed, ThaiboxerKen. He still hasn't answered my initial question. He hasn't even tried to. You know, the one that went "So, would you provide me with a proper reference that the scientific community in 1899 was all happy about things?". I'm not surprised, really.

So will you ever answer that, hammegk? Or will you just prove Thai right for what is not the first time?

 

[hammegk]

Indeed, ThaiboxerKen. He still hasn't answered my initial question.

Sorry, sonny. You first: "Just curious; do you have some specific thought on the 'workings of science' you have concluded I don't understand?"


BTW ...

hy·per·bo·le ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect ....

Even more fun, address my previous thought ...

Let's look at a usual fallacy: “The existence of the universe is given.”

"Is given " is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.

That's ID.

Or can no one here do better than personal attack?

 

[Hawk one]

Sorry, sonny. You first: "Just curious; do you have some specific thought on the 'workings of science' you have concluded I don't understand?"

Actually, I asked you before you asked that of me. Look at the order of posts, it's right there. Everyone and their mother can see that I asked you first. So you should be the one answering me first. Which you still haven't done. All you've done so far is to come with plenty of strawmen and distractions.

So, once again, will you provide me with a proper reference that the scientific community in 1899 was all happy about things? Or will you just demand replies about your strawmen? And by the way, pointing out that you are using strawmen isn't a personal attack, it's just an honest statement after reading your posts. If you don't want people to tell you that, then stop using them. Besides, what purpouse were you asking me the chewing gum question, if it wasn't in order to make a thinly veiled disguise of a personal attack abotu my intelligence? You have yet to show why that question is at all relevant to the debate.

And because it seems you have a hard time understanding me, I think I will repeat my initial question once again: Will you provide me with a proper reference that the scientific community in 1899 was all happy about things?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let's look at a usual fallacy: “The existence of the universe is given.”

"Is given " is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.

That's ID.

But... this is more hammygibble.

This is like talking to Iacchus or 1inChrist.

You haven't defined your terms.

Until you will, then no wonder people call you things like "hammybot". This is a lot of scientific and philosophical words which could have just been generated by a machine. Each means something seperately, and you put them together and it's like reading Chomsky's nonsense sentence: "Furious green ideas sleep colourlessly". Let's look at that again. Let's look at that again and again and again.

"Is given " is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.

What can I say? You are not working within a philosophical system I know --- that's fine, make up your own --- but where on Earth did you define your terms?

I know that compared to you, I'm a newbie. You may have defined your terms long, long ago. So then just give me the link.

At the moment, your way of knocking down evolution seems to be to ask unanswerable questions about it. But the only reason that they are unanswerable is that you refuse to say what they mean.

Please say what they mean. I will answer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Presenting both sides is bogus. Not because that isn't a good idea, but because "both sides" is false. In any interesting area there are usually at least 20 sides that need to be presented.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I know, it's there to present news and the truth.

From the Newsweek site

"Newsweek offers comprehensive coverage of world events with a global network of correspondents, reporters and editors covering national and international affairs, business, science and technology, society and arts and entertainment."

Where did you pull the "truth" part from?

Creationism is still not valid science, regardless of it's changed name to Intelligent Design

So Dembski's book, The Design Inference, that involved high level mathematics and was published by Cambridge University Press... if I'm hearing you correctly, that is Creationism?